Terrorism v. Freedom Fighting: Is there a difference?

 

 

Creating a Definition of Terrorism that Allows for Freedom Fighting

 

By:

 

Brad Schneiderman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fall 2006 Semester

Nation Building Seminar

Professor Perritt

 

Terrorism v. Freedom Fighting: Is there a difference?

Creating a definition of Terrorism that allows for Freedom Fighting

By: Brad Schneiderman

 

            Perhaps no issue in today’s world is of greater importance than that of terrorism.  Afterall, the United States is the main advocate in the “war on terror”.  But the question remains, what is terrorism?  The United States has defined it as “the calculated use or threat of violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies,” while the UK has defined it as “the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological course of action, or serious violence against any person or property.”[1]  If a government wanted to take a hard stance against terrorism, surely the definition of the concept should be more complex than a mere sentence.  Some may argue that the United States’ definition leaves the door open for interpretation intentionally, so that our government has the power to label an organization as a terrorist, or on the contrary exclude an organization from being labeled as a terrorist.  For example, during the Cold War, the term ‘freedom fighter’ was widely used by the United States to describe rebels in countries controlled by Communist states or otherwise under the influence of the Soviet Union, including rebels in Hungary, the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua, UNITA in Angola and the multi-factional Mujahideen in Afghanistan.[2]  ‘Rebels’ of the same nature in modern day Iraq or Israel, however, have been labeled as terrorists by the same United States.  There are a variety of policy reasons as to why the United States would have an interest in labeling an organization a terrorist or freedom fighter, but the focus of this paper will concentrate on the importance of creating a more accurate definition of terrorism. 

If a detailed definition of terrorism were established, perhaps the international community could unite in a more effective manner in its fight against terrorism.  The key goal of this definition would be to distinguish terrorism from mere criminal violence, military action or freedom fighting.  The new definition of terrorism would be included in a proposed treaty, which would authorize an International Labeling Tribunal (a fictitious international tribunal) to label an organization a terrorist or freedom fighter.  The treaty would do so by obligating national courts of signatory countries to apply ILT determinations.  The ILT will also be authorized to characterize the conduct of a non-signatory, but the non-signatory would not be bound to recognize that characterization in its own courts.  Giving the ILT the power to characterize the conduct of a non-signatory is another way of assuring no organization is safe from being labeled a terrorist and furthermore, no organization is free from the repercussions that go along with being labeled a terrorist. 

            The proposed treaty will adapt a United States definition of terrorism into an international setting so the world can unite in its fight on terrorism, as opposed to a superpower acting on who it declares is and is not a terrorist organization.  In order to come up with a better definition of terrorism there are a variety of elements that need to be included in the treaty, such as the methods of violence used by an organization, the overall goals of the organization, how the organization is funded and any peaceful efforts made by the organization.  In constructing the treaty, it may be beneficial for the drafting committee to look at previous organizations that were deemed to be terrorists or freedom fighters, apply the new definition of terrorism to those organizations and see if the resulting label is consistent.  The final section of this paper will have the ILT review a hypothetical organization under the treaty and provide a verdict: terrorist organization or freedom fighting organization?  However, before any of that is done, an international terrorism treaty must be agreed upon.  That is why this paper creates a treaty that defines terrorism, but allows freedom fighting.

 

Proposed Treaty:  Defining Terrorism

In coming up with a definition of terrorism the drafting committee will use the United States definition as a starting point and expand on areas that need more detail.

 

The United States definition of terrorism is as follows:

(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that - 
          (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
        are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
        any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
        within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
          (B) appear to be intended - 
            (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
            (ii) to influence the policy of a government by
          intimidation or coercion; or
            (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
          destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
          (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of
        the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of
        the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they
        appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which
        their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;[3]

 

The proposed Treaty is set up as a series of prongs that factor into whether the International Labeling Tribunal (ILT) decides to label an organization a terrorist or not.  It is the job of the international tribunal to assess which prongs get the most weight in any given circumstance.  For example, an incident may occur where an organization uses force or violence, but does not target civilians; rather is using that force or violence only against an oppressive government.  In this circumstance, an international tribunal would label the organization as freedom fighters as opposed to terrorists.  Additionally, any action taken by a State against an organization that was labeled by the ILT to be terrorists is privileged under this treaty.  A diagram can be found below that attempts to clarify any uncertainty regarding the treaty.  It is important to note that the diagram is not a binding portion of the treaty, but a guide to help readers better understand what factors lead to the labeling of an organization as terrorists or freedom fighters.

 

Article of the Treaty

Article 1: Use of Terms

  1. For the purposes of this proposal:
    1. ‘treaty’ means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments whatever its particular designation;
    2. ‘ratification’, ‘acceptance’, ‘approval’, and ‘accession’ mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty;
    3. ‘organization’ means a group of people consciously cooperating with an explicit purpose.[4]
    4. “civilians” are any people excluding members of the military or government officials.
  2. The provisions of paragraph 1 regarding the use of terms in the present Treaty Proposal are without prejudice to the use of those terms or to the meanings which may be given to them in the internal law of any State.

 

Article 2: Defining Terrorism

The term terrorism means activities that-

  1. Involve violent acts or the threat of violent acts that are in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of the state in which the violence occurs, or are in violation of international humanitarian laws;
    1. International Humanitarian Laws consist of:

                                                               i.      The Geneva Conventions of 1949,[5]

                                                             ii.      The Hague Conventions,[6] and

                                                            iii.      The Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Courts.[7]

    1. If the acts of violence target women and children it shall be more likely the organization will be labeled a terrorist.
    2. If the acts of violence target high ranking men within the community, the organization may or may not be deemed a terrorist, depending on the methods used to execute the violence.
    3. If the acts of violence extend beyond the country’s boundaries, the conduct shall be deemed terrorist.
  1. That are intended;
    1. To intimidate or coerce a civilian population; or
    2. To influence the policy of another government by intimidation or coercion; or
    3. To affect the conduct of a government by using the methods of assassinations, torturing, bombings, kidnappings, and causing mass destruction.

 

Article 3:  Oppressive Governments

  1. Opposition to oppressive governments shall be deemed freedom fighting and not terrorism.
    1. Governments shall not be deemed to be oppressive because they do not afford their people the same rights that United States citizens are afforded.
    2. Governments shall not be deemed to be oppressive because they are not democracies. 
  2. An oppressive government is one in which the government openly discriminates against a group of people because of their race, religion, sex, etc. and furthermore, acts on that discrimination in unethical ways. 
  3. This would include, but not be limited to, the government authorization of executions, imprisonment, torture, rape, and other forms of humiliation.
  4. A goal to overthrow an oppressive government is permitted under this Treaty, but the methods used to accomplish that goal are still to be considered.
    1. Civilians should not be targeted in any attack against an oppressive government.
    2. A goal to overthrow a government based on ideological or religious differences is not permitted.

 

Article 4:  Methods to be Considered

  1. Assassinations.
    1. Assassination of a leader/high ranking official is not permitted unless that leader/high ranking official controls an oppressive government and the assassination is conducted by freedom fighters from within the country’s boundaries.
    2. It is not permissible for another country or an organization located in another country to deem a government oppressive, and assassinate its leader without taking the proper remedial measures including:

                                                               i.      The showing of the oppressive leader’s threat to the world or specified nation,

                                                             ii.      Presenting evidence of the leader’s oppressive government to the International Labeling Tribunal,

                                                            iii.      Efforts to convince the leader to stop their oppressive tactics,

                                                           iv.      Warning the leader to stop their oppressive tactics, and

                                                             v.      Gaining the international community’s acceptance to declare war against the oppressive government. 

1.      It is only permissible under this treaty for an organization to assassinate high ranking government officials or people of their ilk if that government is deemed to be oppressive and if the assassination occurs within the country’s boundaries.

2.      This provides the target with the opportunity to peacefully give up his/her position and exit the Country.

3.      Freedom fighters must not use violence or other acts of aggression outside of their own boundaries.

  1. The use of torture shall not be permitted.
    1. If the use of torture is being committed to prevent future terrorist acts by gaining information about another organization, it may be permitted under this treaty.
    2. The use of torture to “send a message” or “prove a point”, however, is never permitted.
  1. The execution of bombings.

a.       In the event that countries or people are at war, non-suicide bombings shall not play a part in determining whether the acts of violence are to be considered terrorism.

b.      Modern day suicide bombings (“MDSB”) are not permitted.  MDSB are deliberate attacks of a civilian population.

c.       The targeting of a civilian population in the use of any bombing will be deemed a terrorist act.  During war, suicide bombings against the opposition are permissible under this Treaty, so long as you do not target civilians. 

  1. Kidnappings.

a.       The kidnapping of people from outside your boundaries is not permitted.

b.      The kidnapping of non-civilians from within your boundaries is only permitted in the event that your government is deemed to be oppressive.

  1. Causing Mass Destruction.
    1. To put out of existence or ruin a structure.[8]

 

Article 5: Establishing the International Labeling Tribunal

The International Labeling Tribunal (“the ILT”) is hereby established.  It shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons/organizations that violate this Treaty and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.

 

Article 6: Relationship with the International Criminal Court

            This tribunal will provide the ICC with any determinations made about an organization that is involved in a pending case before the ICC.

 

Article 7: Seat of the Tribunal

  1. The seat of the Tribunal shall be established at The Hague in the Netherlands.
  2. The Tribunal shall enter into a headquarters agreement with the Netherlands, to be approved by Signatory’s and thereafter concluded by the President of the Tribunal on its behalf.
  3. The Tribunal may sit elsewhere, whenever it considers it desirable, as provided in this Treaty.

 

Article 8: Legal Status

            The Tribunal shall have international legal personality.  It shall also have such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfillment of its purposes.

 

Article 9: Other Factors to be Considered by the ILT

In determining whether an organization is a terrorist, the ILT shall assess:

  1. How the organization is funded;
    1. Do the funds have illegal origins?
    2. Are the funds non-transparent?
  2. What the overall goal of the organization is; and
  3. Any peaceful efforts made by the organization to accomplish those goals.
    1. Peaceful efforts against an oppressive government should be taken before any use of force or violence.
    2. An organization’s attempts for peace with a non-oppressive government shall be taken into consideration.

 

Article 10: Application of the Treaty

  1. Signing of this treaty shall give the ILT authorization to review any organization within the signatory’s boundaries.
  2. This treaty shall bind any signatory to adhere by the ILT findings.
    1. If the ILT rules that a signatory has a terrorist organization within its boundaries; that organization will be subject to punishment by the signatory’s national courts or
    2. The International Criminal Court (ICC).
  1. The treaty authorizes the ILT to characterize the conduct of an organization within the boundaries of a non-signatory, but the non-signatory would not be bound to recognize that characterization in its courts.

 

Article 11: Organs of the Tribunal

The Tribunal shall be comprised of the following organs:

  1. An Appeals Division, a Trial Division and a Pre-trial Division;
  2. The Office of the Prosecutor; and
  3. The Registry.

 

Article 12: Service of Judges

All judges shall be elected as full-time members of the Tribunal and shall be available to serve on that basis from the commencement of their terms of office.

 

Article 13: Qualifications, Nominations, and Election of Judges

  1. There shall be 11 Judges of the Tribunal.  Although each judge shall be considered a full-time member of the Tribunal, their Bench terms will be 6 years each from the time of election.
  2. The Judges shall be chosen from persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices.
    1. Every candidate for election to the Tribunal shall:

                                                               i.      Have established competence in criminal law and procedure, and the necessary relevant experience, whether as judge, prosecutor, advocate, or in other similar capacity, in criminal proceedings; or

                                                             ii.      Have established competence in relevant areas of international law such as international humanitarian law and the law of human rights.

    1. Every candidate for election to the Tribunal shall have excellent knowledge in the field of terrorism and be fluent in at least one of the working languages of the Tribunal.
  1. Nominations of candidates for election to this Tribunal may be made by any signatory party to this Treaty, and shall be made either:
    1. By the procedure for the nomination of the candidates for appointment to the highest judicial offices in the Signatory in question; or
    2. By the procedure provided for the nomination of candidates for the International Court of Justice in the Statute of that Court.
  2. Each Signatory State can nominate one candidate for judge.
    1. No signatory shall have more than 3 Judges on the Tribunal at any time.
    2. All nominations shall include the necessary detail specifying how the candidate fulfills the requirements of paragraph 2.
  3. The judges shall be elected by secret ballot at a meeting of the Assembly of Signatory States.  The person(s) elected to the Tribunal shall be the candidate(s) which receive the highest number of votes from the Signatory States.  Each Signatory gets one vote. 

 

Article 14: Scope

  1. States are not eligible to be declared terrorists under this Treaty.
  2. Only Non-state organizations shall be reviewed by the ILT.

***Please refer to the Diagram on the following page as a reference for this treaty***

 

 

Organization ChartFactors to be considered by the International Labeling Tribunal in determining whether an organization is a terrorist or not:

Application to Previous Organizations

           

1.      The Lehi Group

Also known as the “The Stern Gang” (after its first commander, Avraham Stern) the Lehi Group was created in 1939 as an armed underground Zionist faction in Palestine .[9]  The organization’s main cause was the eviction of British troops from Palestine.[10]  In fact, the Lehi Group encouraged the Jewish population to fight the British, rather than support them, in World War II.[11]  There were 3 main goals of the organization:

·        To bring together all those interested in liberation (that is, those willing to join in active fighting against the British);

·        To appear before the world as the only active Jewish military organization; and

·        To take over the land of Israel by armed force.

The group believed that its goals would be achieved by finding a strong international ally that would expel the British from Palestine in return for help from the Jewish military.[12]  In order to accomplish their goals, the formation of an organized Jewish military force was required.[13]  Avraham Stern stressed that Lehi’s actions were not directed against the civilian population, but against British representatives of those people.[14]  He crystallized the ideology of the organization in what was referred to as the “18 Principles of Rebirth” which can be found in Appendix A.[15] 

The organization viewed the British as an oppressive government and found Britain’s restrictions on Jewish immigration to be an intolerable breach of international law.[16]  One of the Lehi Groups tactics was assassinating (approximately 42) British soldiers/police officers and Jews that were deemed to be traitors.[17]  The Lehi group would also sabotage infrastructure targets such as bridges, railroads and oil refineries.[18]  In 1948, the Lehi Group bombed the Cairo-Haifa train station leaving 68 dead and another 95 wounded.[19]  Additionally, the Lehi Group was responsible for the Deir Yassin massacre in which 100 to 120 villagers were killed.[20]  Allegedly, the victims of that massacre were comprised of the elderly, women and children.[21]  The Lehi group was the first organization to use mail bombs in targeting British politicians.[22] 

Financing for the Lehi Group was provided by private donations, extortion and bank robberies.[23]  The organization was dissolved in 1948 when the Jewish people were awarded Israel in the wake of WWII.[24]  Seeing as the main goal of the Lehi Group was to eliminate the British occupation of Palestine to enable the formation of a Jewish State, some may argue that the organization turned out to be a success.  But while active, British authorities labeled the Lehi Group as a terrorist organization.[25]  The question before the drafting committee is, would that label be consistent under the newly adopted treaty?

 

            In order to answer this question the drafting committee must determine whether the British Authorities, which were occupying Palestine, could be deemed an oppressive government or not.  This is because the Lehi Group did violate Articles 2(1) and 2(2)(B) and (C) in the “use of violent acts that were in violation of the state in which the violence occurred; that were intended to influence the policy of another government by intimidation or coercion; and to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, and the use of bombings”.  The Lehi Group utilized methods of violence such as assassinations and bombings in their attempt to overthrow the British Authorities of Palestine.  These methods are to be considered under Articles 4(1) and 4(3) of the Treaty.   

Under Article 3(2) of the proposed treaty, “an oppressive government is one in which the government openly discriminates against a group of people because of their race, religion, sex etc. and acts on that discrimination in unethical ways.”  While the British Authorities in Palestine were discriminating against Jews by restricting their immigration, they were “not authorizing the executions, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other forms of humiliation” of the Jews.  (Article 3(3)).  One could make the argument that the British authorities were financially controlling the Jews assets by limiting their immigration and thus, may be deemed an oppressive government, but it is likely this argument would fail because if an oppressive government is one which imposes immigration limitations, than the entire world is living under some form of an oppressive government.  Nevertheless, the Lehi Group targeted a civilian population, including women and children, in the Deir Yassin massacre, which is to be given more weight under Article 2 (1)(B).[26]  Furthermore, the organization does not fair well under Article 9(1)(a), (2), and (3) because the Lehi Group was funded by robberies, its chief goal was to overthrow a non-oppressive government and there were no peaceful efforts made by the organization to achieve its goals.[27]  The drafting committee does note the uniqueness of this situation in that a Jewish state was created in the form of Israel (which happened to be the Lehi Group’s main goal), but still deems the Lehi group to be a TERRORIST organization because of the forgoing reasons. 

 

2.  Provisional Irish Republican Army

            Also known as the PIRA or IRA, the Provisional Irish Republican Army was a paramilitary organization which sought to end Northern Ireland’s status within the United Kingdom and bring about a United Ireland by the use of violence.[28]  Since its 1969 emergence, the IRA’s stated claim has been to overthrow Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and replace them with a sovereign, socialist all-island Irish state.[29]  The IRA views itself as a continuation of the Irish Republican Army (1919-1922), which fought in the Irish War of Independence.[30]  The organization considered the British rule in Northern Ireland and the government of the Republic of Ireland to be oppressive and illegitimate.[31]  The IRA’s initial strategy was to use as much force as possible to cause the collapse of the Northern Ireland administration.[32]

            In 1975, the British secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Merlyn Rees, was able to secure a ceasefire with the IRA until January of the following year.[33]  The end of that ceasefire prompted the “Long War”.[34]  The IRA believed this was a war of attrition focused on causing as many deaths as possible so that the British population would demand for a British removal of Northern Ireland.[35]  To sustain the war and gain support for its ends the IRA used National and International propaganda including publicity campaigns.[36]  The organization also utilized bombings as a method of violence in an effort to weaken the enemy’s financial interests in Northern Ireland.[37]  Additionally, the organization implemented a law of their own where the IRA would govern and punish criminals within their communities.[38]  This practice was more commonly referred to as “Policing”.[39] 

In 1981 captured IRA members began using tactics such as hunger strikes in order to garner support and sympathy from the people of Ireland.[40]  This method proved effective as over 100,000 people attended the first person to die by a hunger strike’s funeral.[41]  The IRA obtained its financial backing from a variety of places including robberies and kidnappings.[42]  It is estimated that the IRA is responsible for 1,800 deaths since 1969.[43]  “Due to the IRA’s frequent use of bombs; its killing of hundreds of policemen, soldiers, loyalist paramilitaries, and civilians throughout Northern Ireland and in other countries, its role in racketeering, bank robberies, ‘street justice/policing’ and the fact that the unionist majority in Northern Ireland wanted to continue living under British Rule, the IRA was deemed a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom”, but to this day insists the organization should be considered freedom fighters.[44]  On July 28, 2005, the IRA announced an end to its armed campaign and has thus far adhered to it.[45]  The question before the drafting committee is, under the newly adopted treaty would the IRA still be considered a terrorist organization?

 

            The IRA violated Article 2(1) and 2(2)(A), (B) and (C) in utilizing “violent acts that were in violation of the state in which the violence occurred; that were intended to intimidate a civilian population, to influence the policy of another government by intimidation and to affect the conduct of a government by utilizing assassinations, bombings and kidnappings.”  As a result of this violation, the drafting committee must determine whether the government of Ireland was oppressive.  Under Article 3(2) of the Treaty, “An oppressive government is one in which the government openly discriminates against a group of people because of their race, religion, or sex and furthermore, acts on that discrimination in unethical ways”.  Members of the IRA have long argued that British discrimination of Roman Catholics has led to the conflict in Northern Ireland.[46]   Additionally, the IRA believes that Ireland is economically disadvantaged under the United Kingdom’s control, which is why the organization has fought for independence so adamantly.[47]  While the drafting committee does recognize the argument that Roman Catholics were unfairly discriminated against by British rule, the methods of violence utilized by the IRA makes the matter of whether the government can be considered oppressive moot.  Even in the event that the government were to be deemed oppressive, the IRA violated Article 3(4)(a) in targeting civilians.[48]  In fact, of the estimated 1800 deaths the IRA is responsible for, between 600 and 650 were civilians.[49]  Additionally, the IRA utilized methods of violence including assassinations, bombings and kidnappings under Article 4(1), (3), and (4), which shall be considered under the treaty. 

Furthermore, the IRA utilized activities such as “Policing” and robberies in order to raise funds which violates Article 9(1)(a) of the treaty.[50]  The drafting committee does recognize the IRA’s efforts for peace, which shall be considered under Article 9(3), but still views the group as a TERRORIST organization because of the methods of violence, and targets of violence utilized by the IRA.

 

3.  Zapatista Army of National Liberation

            Also known as the EZLN (Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional), the Zapatistas are an armed revolutionary group based in Chiapas, Mexico.[51]  The Chiapas region is regarded as one of the poorest in the country of Mexico.[52]  The Zapatistas have been characterized as the first “post-modern” revolution, meaning that they are an armed, yet non-violent revolutionary group that incorporates modern technologies like satellite telephones and the internet as a way to obtain domestic and foreign support.[53]  They take their name from Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata who became infamous for his fight against imperialism.[54]The current Zapatistas view themself as Emiliano’s ideological heirs.[55]

Zapatistas differ from other armed revolutionary movements in that their goal was not to overthrow the Mexican Government, but to call to the world’s attention the large wealth distribution disparity of Chiapas, and to protest the signing of the Northern Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994.[56]  The Zapatistas believe that the signing of NAFTA would only intensify the gap between the rich and the poor in Chiapas and thus, protested it heavily.[57]  While the EZLN did not seek independence from Mexico, they did desire autonomy and demanded that the natural resources which were extracted from the Chiapas region benefit the people of Chiapas.[58]  The EZLN initially used violence in 1994, but after a unilateral ceasefire was adopted no further battles ensued.[59]

After Mexico’s signing of the Northern Atlantic Free Trade Agreement in 1994, members of the EZLN dressed in black ski masks and red bandanas took over five municipalities in Chiapas resulting in dozens of casualties in and around the city of Ocosingo.[60]  Shortly thereafter the Zapatistas officially declared war against the Mexican government and announced its plan to march towards Mexico City to either defeat the Mexican army or allow it to surrender.[61]  Although the threat was issued, the actual “march” did not occur because of the ceasefire agreement that was reached.[62]  The Zapatistas main issue with the Mexican government was the distribution of the country’s potable water supply.[63]  Over 90% of Mexico’s portable water came from Chiapas, yet many communities within Chiapas did not have access to fresh water.[64] 

The EZLN released documents to the public defining a right of the people to:  “demand that the revolutionary armed forces not intervene in matters of civil order or the disposition of capital relating to agriculture, commerce, finances, and industry, as these are the exclusive domain of the civil authorities, elected freely and democratically.  People should acquire and possess arms to defend their persons, families and property, according to the laws of disposition of capital of farms, commerce, finance and industry, against the armed attacks committed by the revolutionary forces or those of the government.”[65]  By August of 2003 the municipalities containing Zapatistas were recognized by the Mexican government as “Juntas,” which implemented communitarian food-producing programs as well as health and school systems.[66]  The once renegade EZLN municipalities were then tolerated by the government despite being a state within a state.[67]

In 2006 the EZLN saw a need to alter their approach and began a new tour encompassing all 31 Mexican states, proposing to unite with “workers, farmers, students, teachers, and employees; the workers of the city and the countryside” through a non-electoral front to talk and collectively write a new constitution in order to establish a new political culture.[68]  The question before the drafting committee is would the Zapatistas be considered a freedom fighting organization under the newly adopted treaty?

 

The EZLN mostly utilized the threat of violence as opposed to the actual use of violence.  However, there were casualties that resulted from the Zapatistas quest for autonomy from the Mexican government.[69]  Therefore, it appears that the EZLN did violate Article 2(1), 2(2)(A) and (B) of the Treaty in using “violent acts in violation of the criminal laws of Mexico which were intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population and to influence the policy of their government by intimidation or coercion.”  It should be noted, however, that the EZLN did not violate Article 2(2)(C) in avoiding the use of mass destruction, assassinations, torture, bombings, or kidnappings as methods of violence.  This distinction separates the Zapatistas from previous organizations like the Lehi Group or IRA.  The Zapatistas primarily used the threat of violence in an effort to change the Mexican’s governments handling of the Chiapas region and to protest the NAFTA agreement of 1994.[70]  This committee views the threat of violence in a more favorable light than the actual use of violence.

 Under Article 9(1), (2), and (3) of the Treaty how the organization is funded; what the overall goal of the organization is and the peaceful efforts made to accomplish those goals shall be considered.  There is no evidence that the Zapatistas were funded by corruption, but this is not to say the EZLN was obtaining its money in a legal manner.  The drafting committee therefore believes that Article 9(1) is of little significance in determining the Zapatistas categorization.  However, the overall goal and the peaceful efforts made by the EZLN to accomplish those goals are of great significance.  The overall goal of the EZLN was to stop the Mexican government’s imperialistic tactics, which were in the Zapatistas minds, oppressing the people of Mexico.[71]  Article 3(2) states that “an oppressive government is one in which the government openly discriminates against a group of people because of their race, religion, sex etc. and furthermore, acts on that discrimination in unethical ways.  Although the Mexican government might not be discriminating against a group of people because of their race, religion or sex, this drafting committee does recognize that some of the policies, including the potable water supply distribution, oppressed the people of Mexico.[72]  Therefore under Article 3(1), “opposition to oppressive governments shall be deemed freedom fighting and not terrorism.”  And seeing as the EZLN made peaceful efforts to negotiate with the oppressive government, the drafting committee views the Zapatistas as FREEDOM FIGHTERS. 

 

4.  Euskadi Ta Askatsuna (ETA)

            ETA, which is Basque for “Basque Homeland and Freedom”, is a paramilitary Basque nationalist organization whose goal is to create an independent socialist state which would be located in between France and Spain.[73]  Originally founded in 1959 the organization quickly evolved from a group advocating traditional cultural ways, to an armed group fighting for independence.[74]  ETA had two primary demands: that the southern Basque Country (which was under Spanish administration) achieved the right to self-determination, and the imprisoned ETA members that were awaiting trial or serving prison sentences be released from Spanish or French prisons.[75]

The ETA organization originated as a result of the leader of Spain’s (Francisco Franco) efforts to destroy Basque nationalism.[76]  Franco restricted any public expressions of Basque culture, and banned all expressions of Basque nationalism, including public display of the nationalist flag, celebrations of nationalist holiday’s, speaking the Basque language in public and teaching the language in schools.[77]  After over four decades of pursuing an independent socialist state, ETA began to realize the dream of a sovereign nation was impractical and decided to shift to a more realistic goal.[78]  That is why in the 1995 manifesto “democratic Alternative”, the paramilitary group offered the cessation of all armed activity if the Spanish government would recognize the Basque people as having sovereignty over Basque territories.[79]  The sovereignty over Basque territories would create a state within a state, similar to the Zapatistas of Mexico.[80] 

ETA tactics included:

  • Bomb warnings, involving telephone calls by ETA members prior to bombing targets so that people could be evacuated from the area.  These calls were sometimes inaccurate (most likely from the language barrier) which resulted in increased casualties;
  • Anonymous threats, often delivered in the Basque Country, Navarre, by placards or graffiti which ultimately forced people into exile or they would be assassinated;
  • Protection money, the so-called “revolutionary tax” paid by many businesses in the Basque Country and in the rest of Spain enforced by the threat of assassination;
  • Kidnappings (often as a punishment for failing to pay the protection money); and
  • Robberies to finance their operations.

ETA’s victims have included:

  • Luis Carrero Blanco, President of the Spanish government under Franco (1973),
  • Members of the army and security forces of the Spanish state,
  • Parliamentarians, members of city council, sympathizers and partisans of other parties,
  • Judges and Lawyers,
  • Functionaries of the prison and judicial systems,
  • Businessmen, professors and journalists, and
  • Random Civilians including women and children.[81]

On March 22, 2006 a permanent ceasefire was established, but on September 23, 2006 ETA announced the organization will continue to fight until Basque independence is recognized.[82]  It is estimated that ETA is responsible for over 900 deaths and dozens of kidnappings since the organization’s arrival.[83]  In 1999, the United States declared that ETA was a terrorist organization.[84]  Would that characterization be consistent under the newly adopted Treaty?

 

            This determination might be the most difficult yet for the drafting committee because there is evidence of Spain, acting as an oppressive government.  But does the violence used by the ETA organization and more importantly, the methods used to execute that violence, outweigh Spain’s oppressive nature against the Basque people?  Under Article 3(2) of the Treaty, “an oppressive government is one in which the government openly discriminates against a group of people because of their race, religion and sex and furthermore, acts on that discrimination in unethical ways.  Article 3(3) of the Treaty establishes that acting on the discrimination in unethical ways “would include, but not be limited to, the government authorization of executions, imprisonment, torture, rape, and humiliation.”  The tactics used by Franco, banning all forms of Basque nationalism and furthermore, punishing those who displayed Basque nationalism, clearly is oppressive under Article 3(2) and 3(3) of the Treaty.[85]  While “a goal to overthrow an oppressive government is permitted, the methods used to accomplish that goal are still to be considered” under Article 3(4) of the Treaty.  There can be no dispute that the ETA organization did use “violent acts in violation of Spanish laws that were intended to influence the policy of another government by intimidation or coercion and to affect the conduct of a government by way of assassinations, bombings, kidnappings and causing mass destruction” under Articles 2(1), 2(2)(B) and 2(2)(C) of the Treaty.[86]  The drafting committee must therefore evaluate the methods used by the ETA organization in executing their acts of violence. 

            The fact that ETA utilized bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and causing mass destruction as methods of violence means the organization was active in 4 of the 5 methods of violence to be considered under Article 4.  More troublesome are the targets of these acts of violence.  Although some of the targets were affiliated with an oppressive government, the targeting of judges/lawyers, businessmen, professors, journalists and random civilians is in direct violation of Article 3(4)(a), “civilians should not be targeted in any attack against an oppressive government”, and Article 4(3)(c), “the targeting of a civilian population in the use of any bombing shall be deemed a terrorist act”.  While the drafting committee will give some discretion to collateral casualties, it appears that the ETA organization made minimal attempts to avoid civilian harm.[87] 

Under Article 9 of the Treaty, other factors to be considered in determining whether an organization is a terrorist are “how the organization was funded; what the overall goal of the organization is and the peaceful efforts made to accomplish those goals.”  It appears the ETA organization was funded through the “Protection Money Revolutionary Tax” imposed on businesses (where if businessmen declined to pay the tax they were assassinated), in addition to a myriad of robberies.[88]  This type of corrupt funding is to be considered under Article 9(1)(a) of the Treaty.  While the drafting committee sympathizes with ETA’s overall goal of an independent Basque state, free from oppression and discrimination, and do recognize the peaceful efforts made by ETA to accomplish those goals (relevant under Article 9(3)(a)), the massive violence utilized by the organization and the methods used in executing that violence is far too great.  The drafting committee therefore categorizes ETA as a TERRORIST organization. 

 

5.  Hezbollah

            Arabic for “Party of God,” Hezbollah is a Shia Islamist militant organization located in Lebanon.[89]  Founded in 1982 Hezbollah quickly became a recognized military power within the state of Lebanon.[90]  On February 16, 1985 Sheik Ibrahim al-Almin publicly declared the organization’s manifesto which included three goals:  1. The eradication of Western imperialism in Lebanon; 2. The transformation of Lebanon’s multi-confessional state into an Islamic state; and 3. The complete destruction of the state of Israel.[91] 

Members of Hezbollah receive arms, training and financial support from Iran, among other Arab sympathizers, and have “operated with Syria’s blessing.”[92]  Initially a militia, Hezbollah has evolved into an organization which has seats in the Lebanese government, a radio and satellite television station, and programs for social development.[93] 

            Hezbollah initial objective was to end Israel’s 1982 occupation of Southern Lebanon.[94]  Israel had invaded Southern Lebanon as a result of being attacked by members of the Palestine Liberation Organization.[95]  The situation escalated into the 1982 Lebanon War and fueled Hezbollah fight against the Israeli’s.[96]  Hezbollah views the territory of the present-day State of Israel as an inalienable Islamic religious bequest, which can never be surrendered to non-Muslims.[97]  This struggle over the disputed land is more commonly referred to as Jihad.[98]  Having declared “Jihad” against Israel, Hezbollah justifies the use of its violence as a necessary means of a religious war.[99]  Hezbollah endorses attacks on Israeli civilians because under Jihad, there is no difference between a combatant and non-combatant.[100]  The secretary general for Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, has often given speeches in which he defended and praised suicide bombings of Israeli civilians, including women and children, for “creating a deterrence and equalizing fear.”[101]  He further offered that “in occupied Palestine there is no difference between a solider and a civilian, for they are all invaders, occupiers, and usurpers of the land.”[102]  Hezbollah is reputed to be among the first Islamic organizations to use tactical suicide bombings against foreign soldiers in the Middle East.[103]  The groups’ tactics have included kidnappings, hijackings, and suicide bombings.[104]  A human rights organization, Amnesty, has declared that Hezbollah has committed war crimes against the civilians of Israel[105].  These forgoing facts have led the United States to label Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.[106]  Would that labeling be consistent under the newly adopted Treaty?

 

            The Israeli government can not be considered oppressive to members of Hezbollah because Hezbollah is located in Lebanon and not within the boundaries of Israel.  Despite this fact, Hezbollah continues to execute acts of violence that are in clear violation of Article 2(1) and Article 2(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the newly adopted Treaty.  The organization uses “violent acts that are in violation of the laws of Israel as well as international humanitarian laws that are intended; to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of another government by intimidation or coercion and to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, torture, bombing and kidnapping.”  Additionally, Hezbollah’s constant targeting of the civilian population violates Article 2(1)(B), “If the acts of violence target women and children it shall be more likely the organization be labeled a terrorist”. Under Article 2(1)(D) of the Treaty, “If the acts of violence extend beyond the country’s boundaries, the conduct shall be deemed terrorist” and because Hezbollah is located in Lebanon, their acts of violence against Israel are acts of terrorism.  Furthermore, the use of suicide bombings to target the civilian population violates Article 4(3)(b) of the Treaty.  Article 4(4)(a) prohibits the kidnapping of people from outside your boundaries, but Hezbollah has kidnapped Israeli soldiers from across the border and further violated Article 4(2) by torturing those who were kidnapped.[107]  While the drafting committee recognizes the Shia’s claim to land they believe is rightfully theirs, the methods of violence utilized by Hezbollah are unacceptable under the newly adopted Treaty.  It is the cumulative effect of the assassinations, torturing, suicide bombings and kidnappings, and the targets of these acts of violence, which makes Hezbollah a TERRORIST organization.

            Under Article 9 there are other factors to be considered such as “how the organization is funded; what the overall goal of the organization is and the peaceful efforts made to accomplish that goal.”  In this case, how the organization is funded is only pertinent because it appears nations such as Iran and Syria are funding a terrorist organization.[108]  One of the stated goals of Hezbollah has been “the complete destruction of the state of Israel.”[109]  Because Hezbollah is seeking to overthrow the Israeli government based on ideological and religious differences, the organization is violating Article 3(4)(b) of the Treaty.[110]  Furthermore, it appears that Hezbollah has made minimal efforts to accomplish the goal of re-obtaining the debated land of Israel in a peaceful manner.  These facts further lead the drafting committee to label Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. 

 

6.  Hamas

            The Arabic acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement,” Hamas is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist organization located in the city of Gaza, Israel.[111]  First established in 1987 by Shaikh Ahmed Yassin, Hamas quickly became a paramilitary force within Israel’s borders.[112]  Hamas’ main goal is similar to that of Hezbollah’s in that the organization calls for the complete destruction of Israel, and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state.[113]  Hamas views the territory of the present-day State of Israel as an inalienable Islamic religious bequest, which can never be surrendered to non-Muslims and the organization has therefore declared Jihad against Israel.[114]  Members of Hamas believe it is the religious duty of every Muslim to retake the land of Israel.[115]  It has been reported that Hamas is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.[116] 

Hamas’ tactics include assassinations, suicide bombings, kidnappings, torturing and causing mass destruction.[117]  Because it is mandatory for all men and women to enlist in the Israeli army, Hamas does not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants in executing their attacks.[118]  One of the deadliest suicide bombings committed by Hamas came on the first night of the Jewish holiday of Passover in March of 2002, when the Netanya hotel was bombed, leaving 30 people dead and more than 140 injured.[119]  In 2002, Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas’ leaders “should be held accountable for their war crimes and crimes against humanity”.[120]  The facts above have led the United States to label Hamas as a terrorist organization.[121]  Would that labeling be consistent under the newly adopted Treaty?

 

Hamas violates Article 2(1) and 2(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Treaty in using “violent acts that are in violation of the criminal laws of the state of Israel and are in violation of international humanitarian laws that are intended; to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of another government by intimidation or coercion and to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, torture, bombings and kidnapping.”  But Hamas differs from Hezbollah in that they are executing violence within the boundaries of their country.  The organization is therefore not in violation of Article 2(1)(D) of the Treaty, which establishes that acts of violence by an organization should not extend beyond their country’s boundaries.  Hamas utilizes methods of violence including assassinations, bombings, kidnappings and causing mass destruction.[122]  These methods are to be considered under Article 4(1), (3), (4) and (5) of the Treaty.  More importantly, Hamas frequently targets the civilian population with rocket attacks and suicide bombings.[123]  Hamas’ targeting of the civilian population violates Article 4(3)(C) of the Treaty, which establishes that “the targeting of a civilian population in the use of any bombing will be deemed a terrorist act”.  The organization, however, views their acts of violence as a legitimate resistance against an oppressive government.[124]

Regardless of whether the organization is living under an oppressive government, Hamas’ fight against Israel is fueled by religious fundamentalism.[125]  In that regard, Hamas is in direct violation of Article 3(4)(b) of the newly adopted Treaty.  A quote from Hamas’ political bureau indicates the feeling of oppression, “Our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people”.[126]  While it can be debated whether or not the Israeli government is oppressive, there can be no dispute that Hamas’ actions are dictated by their religious beliefs.[127]  This is evident in the 1988 Hamas Covenant, which stated the organization’s goal was to “raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine in order to establish an Islamic Republic.”[128]  Additionally, Hamas’ hatred towards the Jewish population is portrayed in their Co-founder’s declaration that “the Holocaust was a Zionist-Nazi collaboration for the purpose of encouraging emigration to Israel.”[129]  Using religious fundamentalism as a reason to overthrow a government is prohibited under Article 3(4)(b) of the Treaty and it therefore irrelevant whether the Israeli government is oppressive or not. 

Under Article 9 of the Treaty, there are other factors to be considered in determining whether or not an organization is a terrorist.  These factors are: 9(1) how the organization is funded, 9(2) what the overall goal of the organization is, and 9(3) the peaceful efforts made by the organization to accomplish their goal.  “According to the United States, Hamas is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states”.[130]  This information is because it provides information of who is funding a potential terrorist organization.  The goal of Hamas to overthrow the government of Israel has already been ruled to be based on religious fundamentalism and thus, is in violation of Article 3(4)(b).  However, Hamas has also engaged in peaceful political activities, including running candidates in the West Bank Chamber of commerce elections.[131]  While the drafting committee recognizes the peaceful efforts made by Hamas under Article 9(3) of the Treaty, the factors discussed above are too great to declare Hamas a freedom fighting organization.  For the forgoing reasons, the drafting committee views Hamas as a TERRORIST organization.

International Labeling Tribunal’s Application of Treaty to Hypothetical Organization

 

Positivania as a peaceful Nation:

Positivania is an independent and sovereign nation with about ten million citizens.[132] The people of Positivanaia can live freely in this democratic country in having voting rights, and entitlement to the general rules of due process.[133] Unfortunately, things are not going as well economically as they do on the political side.[134]  Positivania’s economy is relatively weak and highly dependent on one region where all its mineral resources are located.[135] This region, which is called Minerich, has a strong economy and bright future.[136] Nevertheless, because Positivania is interested in having prosperity for all of its citizens, Minerich is forced to subsidize the poorer parts of the country with a substantial amount of money every year.[137]

 

The Beginning of the Insurgency:

This had never been a problem for a majority of the population of Minerich, but in 1986 a small underclass minority of the population started opposing the subsidy after the crash of the world oil price.[138]  Many people in Minerich lost their jobs because of the recession that followed the crash.[139]  Instead of adhering to the subsidizing rules of Positivania, the people of Minerich used the money to support those who lost their jobs.[140] 

The people of Minerich were not allowed to operate on the political level because the Constitution of Positivania forbids the foundation of a party that has on the agenda to split the country.[141] Some people of Minerich started an insurgency in 1995 to oppose Positivania’s government.[142] They called themselves “Free Minerich Troops” (FMT).[143] It was the belief of the FMT that the Positivania government were oppressing their people by enforcing the mandatory subsidizing policy.[144]  Furthermore, the FMT felt they were being deprived of their due process rights in not being allowed to participate politically in order to challenge the subsidizing policy.[145] The FMT’s biggest complaint was that the government of Positivania did not make any effort to boost the economy other than enacting the mandatory subsidizing policy.[146] Leader’s of the FMT attempted to reconcile the conflict by suggesting alternate ways to boost the economy, but member’s of Positivania’s government were non-responsive.[147] In fact, the Positivania government would arrest and imprison any members of FMT that tried to broadcast the group’s economic ideas.[148]

 The FMT, having no more than some dozens of members at the time, then started assassinating politicians who opposed the organization.[149] The goal of the assassinations was to frighten the community of people opposing the FMT.[150] After the first assassinations in 1995, the police of Positivania seized some of FMT`s leaders.[151] Under application of the national criminal law, the ordinary courts condemned most of them to life imprisonment.[152] Even tough the FMT was momentarily weakened through the sentences against its members, the insurgency persisted.[153] To replace the loss of members the FMT started an intensive internet based propaganda, which turned out to be a very effective and successful way to recruit new fighters.[154] In 1998 the FMT had about one thousand fighters and in 2000 that number doubled.[155] The efforts of the police to defeat the insurgents were ineffective and the situation in Minerich escalated.[156]  The FMT started to use other methods of violence such as kidnapping politicians and bombing military stations.[157]  However, members of the FMT would not torture the kidnapped politicians.[158] The kidnapped politicians would remain in captivity until a ransom was paid by the government.[159]  If the ransom was paid, which sometimes it was depending on the politician being held captive, members of the FMT would distribute the money equally to citizens of Minerich.[160]  Although the FMT used violence as a tactic to scare the community, they never targeted the civilian population.[161]  The question before the ILT is whether FMT is a terrorist organization or a freedom fighting organization?

 

FMT violated Article 2(1) and Article 2(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Treaty in using “violent acts in violation of the criminal laws of Positivania that were intended; to intimidate a civilian population; to influence the policy of another government by intimidation; and to affect the conduct of a government by way of assassinations, kidnappings and bombings”.  The question then becomes, are these methods of violence accepted because they are being utilized against an oppressive government? 

Under Article 3(2) “an oppressive government is one in which the government openly discriminates against a group of people because of their race, religion, sex, etc. and furthermore, acts on that discrimination in unethical ways”.  Article 3(3) explains that acting on the discrimination in unethical ways, “would include, but not be limited to, the government authorization of executions, imprisonment, torture, rape and other forms of humiliation”.    It is the view of this tribunal that the government of Positivania was oppressive towards the people of Minerich.  The Positivania government enacted a policy that forced the prosperous region of Minerich to subsidize to poorer parts on the nation in an effort to stimulate the economy.  While the enactment of this policy it not necessarily oppressive, Positivania’s refusal to allow member’s of Minerich to participate in a political fashion was.  The people of Minerich wanted to propose other ideas to stimiulate the economy of Positivania, but were not granted the proper due process rights the government afforded other citizens.  So while the Positivania government might not have discriminated against the people of Minerich because of their “race, religion or sex” they did discriminate against those people because of their wealth.  By imprisoning the member’s of FMT which spoke about alternative ways to stimulate the economy the Positivania government was oppressive under Article 3(3).  Although “opposition to oppressive governments shall be deemed freedom fighting and not terrorism” under Article 3(1) of the Treaty, the methods of violence used by an organization are still to be considered under Article 3(4). 

            The FMT organization used 3 methods of violence listed under Article 4.  In assassinating politicians of Positivania FMT executed an act of violence that is to be considered under Article 4(1) of the Treaty.  However, the organization did not violate the Treaty because Article 4(1) states, “assassination of a leader/high ranking official is not permitted unless that leader/high ranking official controls an oppressive government and the assassination is conducted by freedom fighters from within the country’s boundaries”.  Additionally, FMT does not violate Article 4(3)(C) in the execution of bombings because they targeted military stations, not the civilian population.  Although the FMT organization kidnapped politicians, they did not violated Article 4(2) because the politicians were not tortured.  Furthermore, the FMT organization acted in accordance to Article 4(4) because they did not kidnap people from outside of their country’s boundaries.  This tribunal certainly does not condone the use of violence, but recognizes the serious ramifications that result in being labeled a terrorist organization.  For this reason, the Tribunal feels the methods of violence utilized by FMT are proper opposition to an oppressive government.

            Under Article 9, other factors to be considered in determining whether an organization is a terrorist include; how the organization is funded; what the overall goal of the organization is; and any peaceful efforts made by the organization to accomplish that goal.  It appears that the FMT organization is funded by the mineral resources which come from the region of Minerich.  On the other hand, there is evidence that part of FMT’s funding comes from the ransom money collected for the kidnapped politicians so FMT is in violation of Article 9(1)(a).  The goal of FMT was never established, although it can be inferred that members of the organization wanted their suggestions to stimulate the economy be heard by the Positivania government.  It also seems clear that the FMT organization wanted to eliminate Positivania’s subsidizing policy for the region of Minerich.  These goals do not violate Article 3(4)(b) which establishes that “a goal to overthrow a government based on ideological or religious differences is not permitted”.  There is also evidence of peaceful efforts made by the FMT organization when its members attempted to operate politically and share ideas of how to stimulate Positivania’s economy.  This fact should be taken into consideration under Article 9(3)(a).  Having already deemed the Positivania government to be oppressive and the methods of violence used by FMT to be acceptable, this Tribunal sees nothing under Article 9 that would sway the characterization of FMT.  The Tribunal therefore determines the FMT to be a FREEDOM FIGHTING organization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A:

Lehi (group) “18 principles of Rebirth”[162]

  1. THE NATION.  The Jewish people are a covenanted people, the originator of monotheism, formulator of the prophetic teachings, standard bearer of human culture, guardian of glorious patrimony.  The Jewish people are schooled in self-sacrifice and suffering; its vision, survivability and faith in redemption are indestructible.
  2. THE HOMELAND.  The homeland of the Land of Israel within the borders delineated in the Bible (“To your descendants, I shall give this land, from the River of Egypt to the great Euphrates River.”  Gensis 15:18)  This is the land of the living, where the entire nation shall live in safety. 
  3. THE NATION AND ITS LAND.  Israel conquered the land with the sword.  There it became a great nation and only there it will be reborn.  Hence, Israel alone has a right to that land.  This is an absolute right.  It has never expired and never will.
  4. THE GOALS.
    1. Redemption of Land
    2. Establishment of Sovereignty
    3. Revival of the nation
  5. EDUCATION.  Educate the nation to love freedom and zealously guard Israel’s eternal patrimony.  Inculcate the idea that the nation is master to its own fate.  Revive the doctrine that “The sword and the book came bound together from heaven” (Midrash Vayikra Rabba 35:8)
  6. UNITY.  The unification of the entire nation around the banner of the Hebrew freedom movement.  The use of the genius, status and resources of individuals and the channeling of the energy, devotion and revolutionary fervour of the masses for the war of liberation.
  7. PACTS.  Make pacts with all those who are willing to help the struggle of the organization and provide direct support.
  8. FORCE.  Consolidate and increase the fighting force in the homeland and in the Diaspora, in the underground and in the barracks, to become the Hebrew army of liberation with its flag, arms and commanders.
  9. WAR.  Constant war against those who stand in the way of fulfilling the goals.
  10. CONQUEST.  The conquest of the homeland from foreign rule and its eternal possession.
  11. SOVEREIGNTY.  Renewal of Hebrew sovereignty over the redeemed land.
  12. RULE OF JUSTICE.  The establishment of social order in the spirit of Jewish morality and prophetic justice.  Under such an order no one will go hungry or unemployed.  All will live in harmony, mutual respect and friendship as an example to the world.
  13. REVIVING THE WILDERNESS.  Build the ruins and revive the wilderness for mass immigration and population increase.
  14. ALIENS.  Solve the problem of alien population (the Arab inhabitants of Palestine) by exchange of population (expelling the Arabs from Palestine and brining the Jews from Arab countries to take their place).
  15. INGATHERING OF THE EXILES.  Total in-gathering of the exiles to their sovereign state.
  16. POWER.  The Hebrew nation shall become a first-rate military, political, cultural, and economical entity in the Middle East and around the Mediterranean Sea.
  17. REVIVAL.  The revival of the Hebrew language as a spoken language by the entire nation, the renewal of the historical spiritual might of Israel.  The purification of the national character in the fire of the revival.
  18. THE TEMPLE.  The building of the Third Temple as a symbol of the new era of total redemption.

 



[1] Charles Townshend, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction, p. 3 (2002).

[2] Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, Freedom Fighter, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fighter (last updated Nov. 26, 2006).

[3] 18 U.S.C. § 2331 (2006). 

[4]Wiktionary, Organization, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/organization (last updated Oct. 18, 2006).

[5] International Committee of the Red Cross, The Geneva Conventions: the core of international humanitarian law, http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions?OpenDocument (last updated Jan. 9, 2006).

[6] Yale Law School, The Hague Convention, http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/hague.html (last updated Aug. 2005).

[7] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm (last updated Dec. 19, 2003).

[8] Merriam-Webster.  Destroy, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/destroyed (2006).

[9] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Lehi (group) p. 1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_gang (last updated Dec. 3, 2006).

[10]   Id.

[11] Id. at 2. 

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id. at 8. 

[15] Id. at 2-4.

[16] Id. at 4. 

[17] Id.

[18] Id. at 6. 

[19] Id.

[20] Id. at 7. 

[21] Id.

[22] Id. at 6.

[23] Id.

[24] Id. at 7. 

[25] Id. at 1. 

[26] Id. at 7 (where 100 villagers comprise of the elderly, women and children were killed by the Lehi Group).

[27] Id. at 4 (where the Lehi Groups funding and goals are discussed).

[28] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Provisional Irish Republican Army p. 1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIRA (last updated Oct. 17, 2006).

[29] Id.

[30] Id. 

[31] Id. at 3. 

[32]Id. at 5.

[33] Id. at 6. 

[34] Id.

[35] Id.

[36] Id. at 7. 

[37] Id. at 6-7.

[38] Id. at 7-9 (where policing of communities is detailed). 

[39]Id. at 9.

[40] Id. at 7. 

[41] Id. 

[42] Id. at 9. 

[43] Id. at 11. 

[44] Id.

[45] Id. at 15. 

[46] Id. at 3 (where in 1969, serious rioting had broken out in Northern Ireland and hundreds of catholic homes were destroyed).

[47] Id.

[48] Id. at 10 (where members of the IRA killed over 60 Catholic civilians who they deemed to be traitors).

[49] Id. at 11. 

[50] Id. at 9 (where the policing of communities is detailed).

[51] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Zapatista Army of National Liberation p. 1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_Of_National_Liberation (last updated Oct. 14, 2006).

[52] Id.

[53] Id.

[54] Id.

[55] Id.

[56] Id.

[57] Id. at 2.

[58] Id.

[59] Id.

[60] Id. at 3.

[61] Id.

[62] Id.

[63] Id. at 2.

[64] Id.

[65] Id. at 3.

[66] Id. at 6.

[67] Id.

[68] Id. at 7-8.

[69] Id. at 3 (where dozens of casualties resulted from clashes in the city of Ocosingo).

[70] Id. at 2-3.

[71] Id. at 1

[72] Id. at 2 (where over 90% of Mexico’s potable water supply came from the region of Chiapas, but people who lived in Chiapas were unable to get fresh water).

[73] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, ETA p. 1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA (last updated Oct. 17, 2006).

[74] Id.

[75] Id. at 2.

[76] Id. at 3.

[77] Id.

[78] Id. at 2.

[79] Id.

[80] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Zapatista Army of National Liberation p. 6, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_Of_National_Liberation (last updated Oct. 14, 2006).

[81] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, ETA p. 3-4, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA (last updated Oct. 17, 2006).

[82] Id. at 1.

[83] Id.

[84] Id. at 13.

[85] Id. at 3.

[86] Id. at 3-4 (where the tactics of the ETA organization are listed).

[87] Id. at 4 (where the victims of the ETA organization are listed).

[88] Id. at 4 (where the Protection Money is explained).

[89] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Hezbollah p.1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah (last updated Oct. 17, 2006). 

[90] Id.  

[91] Id.

[92] Id.

[93] Id.

[94] Id. at 3.

[95] Id.

[96] Id.

[97] Id.

[98] Id.

[99] Id.

[100] Id. at 11-12.

[101] Id.

[102] Id.

[103] Id. at 3.

[104] Id.

[105] Id.

[106] Id. at 17.

[107] Id. at 3.

[108] Id. at 13.

[109] Id. at 1.

[110] Id. at 4-5 (where the ideology of Hezbollah is discussed and the leader of Hezbollah speaks about Hezbollah’s position on Israel).

[111] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Hamas p. 1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas (last updated Oct. 17, 2006).

[112] Id.

[113] Id.

[114] Id. at 3.

[115] Id.

[116] Id. at 1.

[117] Id. at 9.

[118] Id. at 5.

[119] Id. at 9.

[120] Id.

[121]Id.

[122] Id. at 9-10, 17-18 (where the methods of violence used by Hamas are detailed).

[123] Id. at 9-10 (where Hamas’ suicide bombings and use of rockets are detailed).

[124] Id. at 4 (where Hamas states its objective to support the oppressed).

[125] Id. at 3 (where Hamas declares the land of Israel to be a inalienable Islamic waqf or religious bequest, which can never be surrendered to non-muslims).

[126] Id. at 7.

[127] Id. at 4-6 (where the Covenant of Hamas is outlined detailing the organization’s religious beliefs).

[128] Id. at 4.

[129] Id. at 7.

[130] Id. at 9.

[131] Id. at 4.

[132] Adrian Koller, Counter Terrorism: Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (2006) (paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Seminar in Nationbuilding, Chicago-Kent College of Law).

[133] Id.

[134] Id.

[135] Id.

[136] Id.

[137] Id.

[138] Id.

[139] Id.

[140] Id.

[141] Id.

[142] Id.

[143] Id.

[144] Id.

[145] Id.

[146] Id.

[147] Id.

[148] Id.

[149] Id.

[150] Id.

[151] Id.

[152] Id.

[153] Id.

[154] Id.

[155] Id.

[156] Id.

[157] Id.

[158] Id.

[159] Id.

[160] Id.

[161] Id.

[162] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Lehi (group) p. 2-4, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_gang (last updated Dec. 3, 2006).